How does one examine (let alone dispute) hypothetical studies? The OP doesn’t even give us a clue as to how this supposedly safe system works, then asks why we might oppose it.
Right, if the OP is saying that robot cars are safer, more efficient and as affordable as non-robot cars and that this is clearly established, then I think everyone would be for it, end of thread.
You think that is unusual on the SDMB? :smack: Where you been? 
It really should not effect it as long as autodrive is always engaged. It is out of the hands of the individual, though where a person goes may be factored into it.
It’s more then that, it’s the end of speed limits, most traffic control devices and enforcement, the end of distracted and drunk driving and so much more.
What will this do to the very competitive auto industry?
See, that’s 20th Century thinking. 
In 21st Century thinking, all decisions are based on preconceived moral absolutes. You don’t need to know how the system works to know how you will respond to it.
Who says you can’t dispute it, it is readily available in many star systems that subscribe to the temporal news.
But really, I don’t fault you the opportunity to challenge any system when its time has come.
The main Q is will we be willing to forgo manual control for a safer and faster transport system? What would be the reason for opposing such a system? Why do we want to keep the current punishment based system as opposed to a safety based system?
My personal findings is change is basically good, as it is the only way things can get better. On the whole change is preferred to stagnation.
If you want to add a religious context, which i know you don’t, but anyway that is why I subscribe to the myth of God’s reset during the ‘flood’, humanity has been stagnating, and that causes the ‘old boy’ network to prosper, which is detrimental to humanity prospering.
As I see it God decided that change is needed for our advancement.
We can’t tell you why we might oppose your hypothetical system until you give us the details of your hypothetical system.
And what will this do to the very competitive auto industry?
Thank you for that off-topic vote for genocide.
What does that matter?
yw
Is each car tied into a central mainframe so that it may avoid hitting all the other cars on the road?
My understanding of the temporal study is each car is independent of each other, yet flashes a electromagnetic light such as infrared that is detectable for all vehicles in line of sight, and this method of communication also used to alert vehicles not in direct line of sight (and is relayed vehicle to vehicle), will indicate intention of direction.
You are taking this way to literally, I feel since I am defining the terms I will win
Since you are making this up as you go along, then you can make up a solution for any problem anyone in this thread can come up with, right? Therefore, there is no reason for anyone to play the game with an OP that makes up the rules as he so wishes.
Yes you are free to leave.
I think what you’re missing here is that there are always limitations and drawbacks to the technology. Sometimes those limitations are small compared to the benefits and we all make the move and other times it’s not as compelling.
We gave up horses for cars pretty readily for transportation, but people who enjoy horseback riding as a hobby have retained the hobby, and police find that there are advantages to mounted officers because horses have a public relations advantage and a terrain advantage over cars.
If your argument is that the newer technology is safer and better in every way with no flaws, then obviously people will use it… except, I expect in the same cases as horses, such as when driving is a pleasurable hobby or when certain performance needs rule it out. And like horses, it’s likely that laws will come up saying that you can only manually drive your car on certain roads or certain lanes.
Of course, the reality of automated control of cars may not be so rosy. It may be more expensive, less reliable, open to exploits like computer hacking and open to abuses like someone who sends fake signals to misguide other cars.
heh, nm
Yes I realize that some people will want to drive, that is why I stated a mode that will allow this but the auto drive system will take over if needed.
I expect that many would rather get to where they are going with autodrive at 90 mph safer then manually driving at the posted speed limit of 55 mph.
The need to increase road carrying capacity does also play into this, if we can accommodate more cars on the road in congested areas by using solely autodrive at times, why, as a society would we want to allow manual driving cars which would just bog the system down and decrease safety?
btw I’ve understood that police ride horses not for popular reasons but for reasons of control, have you ever stood next to a mounted officer?
Yup. The proximate cause of the 2009 Red Line crash on the DC Metro was the failure of an automated sensor on the track. It didn’t detect the presence of a stopped train, thus the computer on the train behind it didn’t know it was there and the software didn’t automatically slow the train as it approached. It came around the corner, the driver realized the malfunction too late to be of any good, and plowed into the stopped train at 50mph. 9 dead.
The NTSB eventually determined that the sensor in question had been busted for 18 months, plus there were six more just like it. Automation is still dependent on humans to program and maintain it.